Bernie Sanders Medicare for All Plan Is Popular For Now

[riversedge]

Source: nbc



Sep 13 2017, 8:41 am ET

by Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann


As Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., introduces his single-payer “Medicare for All Act” today, the legislation couldn’t be more popular.

.....................................
And here is how Republicans are already hitting Democrats on the issue: “Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders plans to introduce his single-payer health care legislation [Wednesday], but Tammy Baldwin cannot wait to tell folks that she supports his $32 trillion health care plan,” the National Republican Senatorial Committee said. Baldwin is the sole backer of Sanders’ bill from a state President Trump carried in 2016, and she’s up for re-election next year.

Strikingly, Sanders — for now — is leaving out the raising-taxes component from his legislation. “As he described his legislation, Sanders focused on its simplicity, suggesting that Americans would be happy to pay higher taxes if it meant the end of wrangling with health-care companies. The size of the tax increase, he said, would be determined in a separate bill,” the Washington Post’s Dave Weigel writes. “‘Rather than give a detailed proposal about how we’re going to raise $3 trillion a year, we’d rather give the American people options,’ Sanders said.”

Then again, did Republicans making the same arguments against the milder version of Obamacare — “It’s a government takeover!” “It’s going to raise your taxes” — blunt some of the attacks against single payer? We’ll find out in 2018, 2020 and probably beyond. And Baldwin is going to be your canary in the coal mine. ...........................

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-popular-now-n800926

---

Ron Johnson, Tammy Baldwin remain on opposite sides of health care debate


http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/12/ron-johnson-tammy-baldwin-remain-opposite-sides-health-care-debate/659016001/
Bill Glauber, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Published 4:03 p.m. CT Sept. 12, 2017 | Updated 4:28 p.m. CT Sept. 12, 2017




636408313958143909-johnson-baldwin-1.jpg

(Photo: Getty, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
22 CONNECTTWEET 1 LINKEDINCOMMENTEMAILMORE

Wisconsin's two U.S. senators have long been on opposite sides of the health care debate and on Wednesday those stark differences will be on full display as the issue heats up in Congress.

Republican Ron Johnson is expected to sign on as a co-sponsor of the GOP's latest attempt to replace the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.

Meanwhile, Democrat Tammy Baldwin said in an opinion piece for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that she supports Medicare-for-all legislation that will be introduced by independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

At a news conference in Washington, D.C., Johnson will join Republican Sens. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Dean Heller of Nevada to discuss their health care proposal.

Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania will also attend the news conference.

The bill is designed to help ensure parity in federal funding for health care between those states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare expansion and those that did not, according to a 23-page summary draft obtained by NBC News. Wisconsin was among the states that did not expand.......................

[IronLionZion]

1. Go ahead, raise my taxes

and replace my current insurance premiums and part of my payroll taxes for Medicare/Medicaid

[murielm99]

2. Improve the ACA

instead of taking on a new pie in the sky plan that will be very costly. It will never pass. It is divisive and a purity test for Democrats.

Has Bernie bothered to work out the details, or the costs? If his name and face are going to be all over this, he needs to answer for the details. Where is the bill? Has Bernie written it? If not, who has?

[honey bucket]

3. Improve the ACA

I think we should improve the ACA rather than this plan of Bernies. They say the devil is in the details, but Sanders didn't explain how he would pay for and how much more Americans would pay in taxes his free health care for all in 2016 and he still can't explain how much in higher taxes his plan would call for in 2017. There is a reason Sanders lost and his candidates lose. He's not a Democrat and I'm sorry Kamala, my senator is supporting a plan without any details for voters to see.
Fix the ACA!!!!

[JustAnotherGen]

6. +1

And Intend to let Cory Booker know - support the ACA.

[Ligyron]

10. Yet Trump was elected president with even less specificity

about damn near anything.

[NurseJackie]

8. Looks like it's still just a hashtag and bumper sticker slogan. The details are important...

... without details and a cost analysis it's just grandstanding. I'd like to see more, please.

I wonder if it will be like the single-payer that Vermont has.

[murielm99]

13. ROFL.

[harun]

12. If they work out the numbers and it saves people money would you support it?

[murielm99]

15. I consider it divisive.

We need to improve the ACA rather than starting over. We are hanging onto what we have by a thread.

Bernie knows this won't pass. He is grandstanding. I think the Democrats supporting it are positioning themselves for 2018 and 2020. Politics.

[harun]

17. It is all about politics but I think you can have both. Without the threat of Single Payer

I don't think you get to hold on to and improve the ACA. They would start from too weak of a position if they did that.

[Lazy Daisy]

4. If it's got anything to do with Bernie it has to be bad

*As we see more & more Democrats co-sponsoring.* What's the number now? 15?

[zentrum]

5. The tax cost

...will be less than what the average family now has to pay for health insurance and it covers everyone, makes for a healthier country, and a saner country that is joining the rest of the industrialized nations with health care for all.

Go Senators!

Even if it doesn't happen on this go round---it's a great first throw down.

[beaglelover]

7. Has this statement been proven?

"The tax cost will be less than what the average family now has to pay for health insurance"

Please advise. Thanks.

[Hoyt]

9. Unfortunately, No, if for no other reasons than Sanders' plan provides dental, vision, does away

with co-pays and deductibles, and picks up the cost of the uninsured.

I personally think all of that is good and probably worth the cost if done right. But I cannot see how it will not cost more unless you fall for the vague argument that we can tax everyone who makes more than I/you do.

I still believe an ACA Public Option with enhanced subsidies is the way to go forward in this political environment.

[LiberalLovinLug]

11. No one would be "uninsured"

The obvious and generalized reason that it would cost less, other than the proof of that from every other western democracy, is the simple math that if everyone who pays taxes is required to contribute into the pool, into one pool only, then the cost per person would go down. And that is not even counting the money saved in CEO salaries and stock holders dividends in the private industry, by getting rid of the "death panels" middle men. And this large pool could also be taken advantage of in negotiating drug prices down. As does Canada for instance.

Now no doubt the initial years of setting it up would cost a bit more. And there would be a displaced worker problem. And I'm sure Republicans would be making hay out of it to scare people, and they might be successful at doing that. If America would have started this decades ago like other countries it would have been less painful.

But IF it could be accomplished, perhaps by the suggestion that a medicare for all system with the age requirement being dropped by 5 or 10 years in increments might be the way to go, then yes, after it is fully implemented, it would cost less for the reasons above.

[zentrum]

14. Enhanced subsidies come

....from taxes. So how have we avoided raised taxes?

The paper work alone makes private insurance cost more. Why can't we have what every other industrialized country has? I just don't get it.

Why do we have to be the only health care system that inserts a profit making entity in the middle? Why is there health care for profit at all? Another way to say this---why is sickness being monetized?

[CanSocDem]

16. Good questions.

"Why is there health care for profit at all?"


Watching this play out, time after time, listening to the discussion, and in the last decade read all the heartfelt opinions that the internet has to offer, I'm tempted to believe that deep in the heart of every American is the suspicion that they don't deserve good health.

Everything about a for profit health system is arranged around the premise that 'good health' is not for everyone. Like you say it has become a marketable commodity.

From the excessive insurance costs to the unconscionable OTC costs of pharmaceutical products and the unrelenting mainstream media propaganda telling you of all the latest diseases you probably have, I doubt that any American has a chance at REAL health.

.

[zentrum]

18. It really may be

....exactly as you say. Deep down Americans feel they don't deserve health care.

[QC]

19. Well, we obviously shouldn't do this if

the Republicans are going to say mean things.